To Edmund Pendleton Philadelphia, Aug. 13, 1776

DEAR SIR,

-- Your's of Aug. 3. came to hand yesterday; having
had no moment to spare since, I am obliged to set down to answer it
at a Committee table while the Committee is collecting. My thoughts
therefore on the subject you propose will be merely extempore. The
opinion that our lands were allodial possessions is one which I have
very long held, and had in my eye during a pretty considerable part
of my law reading which I found always strengthened it. It was
mentioned in a very hasty production, intended to have been put under
a course of severe correction, but produced afterwards to the world
in a way with which you are acquainted. This opinion I have thought
& still think to prove if ever I should have time to look into books
again. But this is only meant with respect to the English law as
transplanted here. How far our acts of assembly or acceptance of
grants may have converted lands which were allodial into feuds I have
never considered. This matter is now become a mere speculative
point; & we have it in our power to make it what it ought to be for
the public good.

It may be considered in the two points of view 1st. as bringing
a revenue into the public treasury. 2d. as a tenure. I have only
time to suggest hints on each of these heads. 1. Is it consistent
with good policy or free government to establish a perpetual revenue?
is it not against the practice of our wise British ancestors? have
not the instances in which we have departed from this in Virginia
been constantly condemned by the universal voice of our country? is
it safe to make the governing power when once seated in office,
independent of it's revenue? should we not have in contemplation &
prepare for an event (however deprecated) which may happen in the
possibility of things; I mean a reacknowledgment of the British
tyrant as our king, & previously strip him of every prejudicial
possession? Remember how universally the people run into the idea of
recalling Charles the 2d after living many years under a republican
government. -- As to the second was not the separation of the
property from the perpetual use of lands a mere fiction? Is not it's
history well known, & the purposes for which it was introduced, to
wit, the establishment of a military system of defence?

Was it not afterwards made an engine of immense oppression? Is
it wanting with us for the purpose of military defence? May not it's
other legal effects (such as them at least as are valuable) be
performed in other more simple ways? Has it not been the practice of
all other nations to hold their lands as their personal estate in
absolute dominion? Are we not the better for what we have hitherto
abolished of the feudal system? Has not every restitution of the
antient Saxon laws had happy effects? Is it not better now that we
return at once into that happy system of our ancestors, the wisest &
most perfect ever yet devised by the wit of man, as it stood before
the 8th century.

The idea of Congress selling out unlocated lands has been
sometimes dropped, but we have alwais met the hint with such
determined opposition that I believe it will never be proposed. -- I
am against selling the lands at all. The people who will migrate to
the Westward whether they form part of the old, or of a new colony
will be subject to their proportion of the Continental debt then
unpaid. They ought not to be subject to more. They will be a people
little able to pay taxes. There is no equity in fixing upon them the
whole burthen of this war, or any other proportion than we bear
ourselves. By selling the lands to them, you will disgust them, and
cause an avulsion of them from the common union. They will settle
the lands in spite of everybody. -- I am at the same time clear that
they should be appropriated in small quantities. It is said that
wealthy foreigners will come in great numbers, & they ought to pay
for the liberty we shall have provided for them. True, but make them
pay in settlers. A foreigner who brings a settler for every 100, or
200 acres of land to be granted him pays a better price than if he
had put into the public treasury 5/ or 5 pound. That settler will be
worth to the public 20 times as much every year, as on our old plan
he would have paid in one paiment. I have thrown these loose
thoughts together only in obedience to your letter, there is not an
atom of them which would not have occurred to you on a moment's
contemplation of the subject. Charge yourself therefore with the
trouble of reading two pages of such undigested stuff.

By Saturday's post the General wrote us that Ld. Howe had got
(I think 100) flat bottomed boats alongside, & 30 of them were then
loaded with men; by which it was concluded he was preparing to
attack, yet this is Tuesday & we hear nothing further. The General
has by his last return, 17000 some odd men, of whom near 4000 are
sick & near 3000 at out posts in Long Island &c. So you may say he
has but 10000 effective men to defend the works of New York. His
works however are good & his men in spirits, which I hope will be
equal to an addition of many thousands. He had called for 2000 men
from the flying camp which were then embarking to him & would
certainly be with him in time even if the attack was immediate. The
enemy have (since Clinton & his army joined them) 15.000 men of whom
not many are sick. Every influence of Congress has been exerted in
vain to double the General's force. It was impossible to prevail on
the people to leave their harvest. That is now in, & great numbers
are in motion, but they have no chance to be there in time. Should
however any disaster befall us at New York they will form a great
army on the spot to stop the progress of the enemy. I think there
cannot be less than 6 or 8000 men in this city & between it & the
flying camp. Our council complain of our calling away two of the
Virginia battalions. But is this reasonable. They have no British
enemy, & if human reason is of any use to conjecture future events,
they will not have one. Their Indian enemy is not to be opposed by
their regular battalions. Other colonies of not more than half their
military strength have 20 battalions in the field. Think of these
things & endeavor to reconcile them not only to this, but to yield
greater assistance to the common cause if wanted. I wish every
battalion we have was now in New York. -- We yesterday received
dispatches from the Commissioners at Fort Pitt. I have not read
them, but a gentleman who has, tells me they are favorable. The
Shawanese & Delewares are disposed to peace. I believe it, for this
reason. We had by different advices information from the Shawanese
that they should strike us, that this was against their will, but
that they must do what the Senecas bid them. At that time we knew
the Senecas meditated war. We directed a declaration to be made to
the six nations in general that if they did not take the most
decisive measures for the preservation of neutrality we would never
cease waging war with them while one was to be found on the face of
the earth. They immediately changed their conduct and I doubt not
have given corresponding information to the Shawanese and Delewares.

I hope the Cherokees will now be driven beyond the Missisipi &
that this in future will be declared to the Indians the invariable
consequence of their beginning a war. Our contest with Britain is
too serious and too great to permit any possibility of avocation from
the Indians. This then is the season for driving them off, & our
Southern colonies are happily rid of every other enemy & may exert
their whole force in that quarter.

I hope to leave this place some time this month.
I am Dear Sir, Your affectionate friend

P. S. Mr. Madison of the college & Mr. Johnson of Fredsb'gh
are arrived in New York. They say nothing material had happened in
England. The French ministry was changed.